5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Bruntál.
6.  On 26 September 1996 a certain S. brought proceedings for damages against the applicant in connection with a traffic accident which had occurred on 5 March 1996.
7.  On 21 October 1996 the Bruntál District Court (okresní soud) granted his action and delivered a payment order against the applicant who filed a protest (odpor) on 3 November 1996 alleging that S. was responsible for the accident.
8.  On 28 March 1997 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) dismissed the applicant's challenge of the District Court's judge for bias.
9.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court appointed an expert in the price and valuation of motor vehicles. On 27 March 1998 the expert drew up his opinion.
10.  In the meantime, on 9 March 1998, S. had died.
11.  On 30 December 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to suspend the proceedings in order to bring the case to the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), for a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of a certain provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allegedly in contradiction with certain provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod).
12.  On 20 January 1999 the District Court dismissed his request. It further allowed S.'s heirs' request to modify their action. On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court upheld this decision. On the same day, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge of the District Court's judge for bias.
13.  On 17 August 1999 the District Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings.
14.  On 2 September 1999 the court resumed the proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay the damages claimed plus 16% default interest as of 1 November 1996. The court based its finding that the applicant was responsible for the accident on the parties' statements, the police file concerning the traffic accident and other documentary evidence. The court did not grant the applicant's request to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings for damages which he had brought against the police officers who had investigated the accident.
15.  On 11 October 1999 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
16.  In a letter of 3 September 2000 the applicant informed the Regional Court that he could not take part in a hearing scheduled for 26 September 2000. He asked the court that his letter be read out if the appellate proceedings continued.
17.  On 26 September 2000 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. It also dismissed an application by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law (dovolání) against its decision.
18.  On 27 February 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) alleging, inter alia, a violation of Articles 37 § 2 (the right to legal assistance) and 37 § 3 (equality of the parties) and 38 § 2 (the right to a public hearing without delay and the right to comment on submitted evidence) of the Charter.
19.  On 14 May 2001 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible for failure to exhaust statutory remedies by appealing on points of law. It referred to Article 239 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure[1].